Vasudeva Acharya vs Smt. Meera B. Acharya
2025 Latest Caselaw 10225 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Vasudeva Acharya vs Smt. Meera B. Acharya on 14 November, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:46738
                                                         RSA No. 842 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.842 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    VASUDEVA ACHARYA
                         S/O LATE H. GUNDA ACHARYA
                         AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
                         NO.13, S.K. NIVAS, 2ND MAIN
                         DESHABANDHU NAGAR
                         VIDYARANYAPURA
                         BENGALURU - 560 097.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                              (BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. MEERA B. ACHARYA
                         W/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M        2.    SMT. REKHA B. ACHARYA
Location: HIGH           D/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
COURT OF                 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
KARNATAKA
                   3.    RAKESH B. ACHARYA
                         S/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
                         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                   4.    SMT. RAKSHA B. ACHARYA
                         D/O LATE BHASKARA ACHARYA
                         AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                         NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
                         R/AT M.B. NIVAS,
                         OPP: KAPIKAD BUS STAND
                         THOKKOTTU POST, ULLAL
                         MANGALURU - 575 017.
                                 -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:46738
                                            RSA No. 842 of 2025


HC-KAR




5.   SMT. SANDHYA P. BALLAL
     W/O MR. PRASAD BALLAL
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     R/AT SUBODH BALLAL HOUSE
     MELPETE, HEBRI VILLAGE
     KARKALA TALUK-576 112.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, KARKALA.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that as per the partition deed dated

27.10.1994 between the children of Gunda Acharya,

preferential right was conferred upon the co-sharer to sell the

NC: 2025:KHC:46738

HC-KAR

property only to the family members and exclude outsiders and

contention was also taken that the defendants illegally sold the

property in violation of the partition deed. Hence, the plaintiff is

entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the

defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and surrender

the same to the plaintiff.

4. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 remained absent and they

have been placed exparte. The defendant No.5 took the

contention that suit schedule property was sold by defendant

Nos.1 to 4 for valid consideration to clear the loan advanced by

Bagavathi Co-operative Bank to deceased Bhaskar Acharya and

suit property was hypothecated to suit Bank.

5. The Trial Court having considered the material

available on record though answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as

'affirmative', particularly in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 taken

note of the limitation and while answering issue of limitation in

paragraph No.17 and having referred the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi

reported in AIR 2008 SC 2171, wherein it is categorically held

that preferential right is available within 1 year and the present

NC: 2025:KHC:46738

HC-KAR

suit is filed after 3 years. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for

the relief of declaration and dismissed the suit.

6. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is

challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.22/2018

and the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the

material available on record in keeping the grounds which have

been urged in the appeal formulated the points whether the

plaintiff proves that as per partition dated 27.10.1994,

preferential right was conferred upon the co-sharer, whether

the sale is in violation of terms of partition and whether the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference.

The First Appellate Court having considered the material

available on record, particularly the answer elicited from the

mouth of witnesses and also the document of Ex.P1, taken note

of preferential right given in the partition deed and also taken

note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court and Article 97 of

the Limitation Act is also extracted in paragraph No.25 and

comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any

error.

NC: 2025:KHC:46738

HC-KAR

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would vehemently contend that both the Courts have

committed an error in dismissing the suit and confirming the

same since the document itself is very clear with regard to right

of preemption and the prohibition against non-alienation in

favour of third party created in the partition deed is in conflict

with the mandates of law under Section 43 and Section 61 (1)

of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and also document Ex.P3 dated

27.10.1994 was also brought to notice of this Court. The

counsel also would contend that this Court has to frame

substantial question of law invoking Section 43 and Section

61(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and

also the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Trial Court answered

issue Nos.1 and 2 as 'affirmative' and while considering the law

of limitation, in detail discussed with regard to the rights of the

parties in paragraph No.17 i.e., Section 3 of the Limitation Act

and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court referred

supra and period of limitation of 1 year to enforce a right of

preemption whether the right is founded on law or general

NC: 2025:KHC:46738

HC-KAR

usage or on special contract and the time from which period it

begins to run is also extracted and detailed discussion was

made in paragraph No.17. In paragraph No.18, pressed into

service the judgment of the Apex Court and based on the

judgment of the Apex Court itself, the relief of declaration is

declined to the appellant/plaintiff and the First Appellate Court

also reiterated the same and even extracted the law of

limitation, Article 97 of the Limitation Act and confirmed the

judgment of the Trial Court. When such being the case, when

question of law and factual aspects are also considered by the

Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I do not find any

ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial

question of law.

9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST